ORIGINAL: Murat
Again, all 3 of the above are discussing "playing" China as an auxillary to another power. I am saying that China, alone, without any other role, in a 5-player game, looks like it would bite. Everyone keeps pointing out that China would be great for a beginner, but after a game or so they are no longer a beginner and will most likely want to switch seats with someone else. If this is meant to be a 4-player game (GER, JAP, USSR, WA), make it one, but if it is meant to be a 5-player game, I think China is the weak link and that a different 5-player set-up (GER, JAP, USSR, UK, USA) would be more appealing. I have seen no indication anywhere else (and I have read through the posts) that indicate China is a player position equally involved and interesting as the other 4.
Actually, keep it the way it is and I will keep my $$$, no sense trying to help improve this thing since y'all have deemed it perfect.
No, we don't think it is perfect, but you don't seem to want to understand that there are certain systems in the game that make China being "independent" important and desirable. Since we expect most people to play the 1940 scenario, keep in mind this scenario is much different than Axis & Allies. The US player until brought into the war would be fairly boring to play. You'd do some production and lend lease your supplies, and watch the rest of the action. The British on the other hand are very busy. By combining them (as they did function with combined armies and army groups during the war), you get a very interesting player to play. The Russians are also a little slow at first (although they are usually in the war before the US), so that's why we put China between the WA and the SU (based on tester suggestions). This allows the Soviet player to play the Chinese player as well and gives them something interesting to do early in the game. For PBEM, by being next to each other in turn order, you skip an email this way. This game can be played from 2-5 players, but I think we all expect that the 2 most common ways to play the game (when not playing the AI) will be 2 and 4 player games. What's wrong with that? You can play 5, but what we are saying is that 5 is best if 1 player is definitely less experienced playing the game. Unless you have an A&A group of 5 guys already established and want to move over to GGWaW, why not just play the 4 player game and see if that works. I've always enjoyed Axis & Allies Europe (the boardgame), and although that is a 4 player game, I've played it much more often with 3 people with 1 player playing both the US and Britain.
Given our system of making each player use the same weapons ratings, we had to make China separate. Yes, we could have made the game a 6 player game by breaking up the US and Britain, but this would have brought up other issues given the way we deal with merchant shipping throughout the world. We think the systems we've choosen are the best way to end up with a more accurate game while making a fun game as well. If you feel the absolute need to have the US and Britain be unique players, you will not get this in GGWaW. Obviously we hope that the majority of players will be willing to give it a try, and that if they respond as the testers did, perhaps they will encourage more skeptics to try it. That's all we can hope at this point because we have fundamental design reasons for doing what we did that cannot be changed without causing bigger issues and detracting from what we honestly believe is a good design. Sometimes what sounds strange actually works great, but I won't deny the marketing issues in overcoming the perception problem.
